1. Under Rev.Stats. § 5209, as amended; U.S.C. Title 12,
§ 592; which punishes any officer of a federal reserve or
member bank
Page 281 U. S. 203
who make any false entry in any book or report of the bank with
intent to defraud or deceive, etc., two entries on a bank's books
referring to the same transaction, based upon the same draft and
which were the correlated means of accomplishing a single fraud,
are not separately punishable as separate offenses. P.
281 U. S.
204.
2. The offense under this section of making a false entry in a
report of condition of a bank, showing a credit, is distinct from
the offense of making an earlier false entry on its books, showing
the same credit. P.
281 U. S.
205.
3. In a prosecution under this section for making a false entry
of credit in a report of the bank's condition with intent to
defraud and deceive, a former acquittal upon a charge of making
with like intent earlier entries of the same credit on the bank's
books is not a bar, since the acquittal, though it establishes that
the book entries were not made with criminal intent, does not
establish that they were true, and
non constat but that
the accused may have learned of their falsity after entering them
on the books and before making the report. P.
281 U. S.
205.
No. 281 affirmed.
No. 282 reversed.
Appeals from judgments of the district court sustaining pleas of
former acquittal in bar of two indictments, one charging that the
appellee made a false entry on a book of a bank of which he was
president, and the other that he made a false entry in a report of
its condition.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
The defendant was indicted for a false entry in a book of a bank
of which he was president, and which was a member of the federal
reserve system. The entry imported that he had made a deposit of
$75,000 to the
Page 281 U. S. 204
credit of himself and sons, which it is averred that he had not
made. The book was a ledger showing the account of D. D. Adams
& Sons, among others, with the bank. The defendant pleaded a
former acquittal. The previous indictment was for a false entry in
another book of the bank known as the journal ledger and daily
balance book, and imported a remittance of $75,000 to another bank
to the credit of the defendant's own for which the defendant took
credit as above stated. This remittance was a draft for $75,000
which it was alleged that Adams was not entitled to draw. The two
entries had reference to the same transaction, were based upon the
same draft and were the correlated means of accomplishing a single
fraud if fraud there had been. The district court held that, on its
construction of Rev.Sts. § 5209, as amended by the Act of
September 26, 1918, c. 177, § 7, 40 Stat. 967, 972; U.S.C.
Title 12, § 592, there could be but one prosecution for false
entries based upon any single draft, even though several different
entries were made in the different books of the bank, all relating
to the same. Therefore, it sustained the plea. The United States
appealed.
It is a short point. The statute punishes any officer of a
federal reserve bank who makes any false entry in any book of the
bank with intent, etc. The government contends for the most literal
reading of the words, and that every such entry is a separate
offense to be separately punished. But we think that it cannot have
been contemplated that the mere multiplication of entries, all to
the same point and with a single intent, should multiply the
punishment in proportion to the complexity of the bookkeeping. The
judgment in this case is affirmed.
The second case presents a more delicate question than the
previous one, although it was thought by the district court to come
under the same principle. This indictment is for a false entry in a
report of conditions of the defendant's bank showing as due from
banks other
Page 281 U. S. 205
than federal reserve banks $138,409.52 instead of the true sum,
$91,284.27. The plea of former acquittal we take as intended to
allege that the difference was made by three items in respect of
which the defendant had been indicted for false entries in the
books of the bank, of a similar character to those in the other
case, with intent to defraud the bank and the examiners appointed
to examine its affairs. On this indictment also, the defendant was
acquitted. It is obvious that, technically, the plea was had
because the offense alleged was a different offense. The report is
not an entry in the books of the bank and does not purport to be a
mere transcript of entries. It is a present affirmation as to the
resources of the bank -- a document different from the books of the
bank and having a different purpose. But, although not technically
a former acquittal, the judgment was conclusive upon all that it
decided.
United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U. S.
85. It establishes that at the time of making the
entries, the defendant was not guilty of an intent to defraud the
bank or the examiners. It does not establish that the entries were
true, although that might have been a ground for the verdict.
Washington, Alexandria &
Georgetown Steam Packet Co. v. Sickles, 5 Wall.
580;
De Sollar v. Hanscome, 158 U.
S. 216,
158 U. S.
221-222. An alternative possible ground is that,
although the entries were untrue the defendant believed them to be
true or for some reason believed them to be justified. However
unlikely it may be that there was a different intent at the time of
the later act from that with which the entries were made in the
books of the bank, it is entirely possible that the defendant
supposed himself to be acting lawfully at the earlier moment, but
that he had acquired more accurate knowledge before he signed the
report, that he then knew that it was false and was guilty then,
although not before.
281. Judgment affirmed.
282. Judgment reversed.
